On Forgiveness

Toward a fuller understanding

Nov 11, 2024

If you prefer, you may download this essay as a PDF file for printing, reading off-line, or sharing with others.

I’m repeatedly reminded of and often deeply saddened by how little some understand forgiveness. Despite the need to grasp, receive, and extend this vital virtue into our lives, the human capacity to withhold it, coupled with a tenacious need to maintain a grudge, is troubling. At almost every turn and certainly every day I find another missed opportunity to extend forgiveness, or to receive it, both in others and in myself. What is it about forgiveness that keeps us from experiencing it? Why is it so hard to offer it to others or to receive it from others? It is my hope that those who need to experience forgiveness will think hard and deep about its value and apply it wherever it is needed.

So many of the insights here are based on gleanings from my reading several works in the area of forgiveness, including Evil and the Justice of God (N. T. Wright), Free of Charge (Miraslov Volf), Unpacking Forgiveness (Chris Brauns), Forgiveness and Atonement (Jonathan Rutledge), and various posts online at “Thoughts Theological” (Terrance Tiessen). See also, Paul Copan’s piece, “Guilt and the Need for Forgiveness.” On those books mentioned, you can find my remarks here in my Substack space.

I am confident there are aspects that I have failed to consider or clearly articulate. Therefore, I am grateful for comments on this essay so I might learn from my readers. Your feedback is welcome. And, if you believe this might be helpful to others, please do pass it along. Thank you!

Introducing Forgiveness

Is there a difference between saying “I’m sorry” and “Will you forgive me?” What is involved in offering forgiveness? Does God forgive unconditionally? Must I forgive others even if they refuse to repent? How can I find peace when others have committed a grievous offense against me? Shouldn’t I unconditionally grant forgiveness to others so, at least, a “root of bitterness” does not well up inside me?

At the very outset, it’s important to highlight an assumption that underscores our idea of forgiveness, which is: we cannot extend to others what we do not already have. Not only is this intuitively evident but crucially important to our understanding as we wrestle with forgiveness.

First, let’s define what it is we are talking about here. Taking my queue from the apostle Paul, I believe that …

Forgiveness is the cancellation of a moral debt incurred due to an offense in a relationship caused by sin.

“And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross” (Col 2:13–15).

The cross is central to forgiveness and it is the basis upon which all sin is potentially forgiven. In a decisive moment in history, God extended the offer of forgiveness to everyone and, therefore, makes it possible to extend to others what we have been given. What follows is my attempt to show how this can look in real life.

As a social discipline, forgiveness involves a triangle of relationships.

Every sin committed against a person is also a sin against God in whose image we are made. God bears all our burdens, including the pain we experience when others sin against us and vice versa. God sees the offense committed by the offender, feels the pain of the offended, and provides the vehicle for forgiveness in the cross of Christ.

Explaining Forgiveness

Forgiveness entails vicarious suffering.

When an offense1 has taken place, then a loss or debt occurs because something rightfully owned (human dignity) has been compromised, marred, or damaged. The debtor can be released from their debt when it has been paid in full or assumed by another. If justice is to be satisfied, the loss must be recovered and what has been taken must be restored to someone by someone. The cancellation of debt entails not ignoring or denying the debt but absorbing it. When we extend the offer of forgiveness to our offender, we are in effect foregoing the restitution that we are entitled to; we are conditionally freeing the offender from their obligation to pay their debt. This is possible because the Son of God already paid the offender’s debt and has already suffered on behalf of the offended. That is the basis on which the offer of forgiveness can be extended to an offender. The offended is released from exacting any penalty due; the offender is conditionally released from obligation to pay their debt since Jesus already paid it in full and suffered on behalf of both. Christ stands in the place of the offended and pays the debt of the offender.

Are there any conditions for granting forgiveness?

Yes; two: atonement (God’s part; Lev 16; Matt 26:28; Heb 2:17; 9:22; 1 Jn 2:2, 4:10) and repentance (our part; Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; 17:3; 24:47; Acts 2:38). Sin must be atoned for and the offender must take responsibility for their offense. Both are necessary before forgiveness is granted. Atonement makes the way for reconciliation by settling the moral debt. Repentance takes the stain of guilt away by demonstrating responsibility for the moral debt.

The offer of forgiveness must ever be in us and come from us.

We unconditionally offer forgiveness because our relationship with God does not rest on moral performance and therefore cannot be destroyed by immoral acts. So too must we extend this model into all our relationships. Knowing this sets the stage for and in fact makes possible confession and repentance. How?

Consider the story of the prodigal and padre (Lk 15:11-32). Although sin creates distance between us and God, just as it had the prodigal and his father, our heavenly Father intently looks across that distance and runs to embrace us even before we confess and repent (Lk 15:20). Put differently, the compassion extended in an offer of forgiveness can be a catalyst for an offender’s confession and repentance. Otherwise, where’s the incentive for an offender to confess and repent? In the entire biblical scheme, it is God, not the sinner, who always takes the initiative in confession and repentance by maintaining a posture of embrace and not exclusion, mercy and not judgment.

It should not escape our notice that in the story of the prodigal and the padre the sequence outlined by the son was broken by the father’s embrace. The son planned to approach his father, confess, and hope for acceptance (Lk 15:18-19). However, the father’s response interrupted the son’s strategy (Lk 15:20) and so “confession followed acceptance” (Lk 15:21). This is not to say that confession and repentance were unnecessary, but they were not required by the father before the embrace of forgiveness was extended. The son’s transgression infected the relationship for sure, but it did not jeopardize it. Why? Because the relationship was not grounded in moral performance but in unconditional love.

Extending and receiving forgiveness turns hell on its head and frees us to love and be loved.

The act of offering forgiveness to an offender overcomes evil by empowering the offended with the requisite freedom necessary to love the offender. Love, therefore, has the final word, not the offense. Before forgiveness is offered, the offended is rightfully angry with the offender because of the offense. Yet the anger of the offended often becomes the controlling influence over the relationship when a breach is realized. Thus, there is a kind of psychological bondage whereby the relationship is held hostage to the evil committed. Offering forgiveness loosens the bonds of emotional slavery and opens the doorway to love our offender. “If I have named the evil and done my best to offer genuine forgiveness and reconciliation, I am free to love the person even if they don’t want to respond.” And so, “when we offer genuine forgiveness to someone else we are no longer conditioned by the evil that they have done—even if they refuse to accept this forgiveness” (N. T. Wright).

Forgiveness is not only a healing power but the reigning power over evil.

Since “we are in fact called to be people of forgiveness in the present because that is the life we shall be living in the future,” the master of evil can be conquered now by offering forgiveness, the same forgiveness that someday will characterize our future. Forgiveness, then, “releases not only the person who is being forgiven but the person who is doing the forgiving.” Forgiveness is saying in effect “I release you from any burden of guilt, any sense that I might still be angry with you when we meet tomorrow, or that I will treat you differently in the future or try to get even with you. But I also release myself from having to go to bed cross, from having to toss and turn wondering how to gain my revenge.” Consequently, “the continuing presence and power of evil in the present world cannot blackmail the new world and veto its creation because the power of forgiveness … is precisely that it enables both God and God’s people to avoid the imposition of other people’s evil” (N. T. Wright).

The full expression of God’s love was behind and in Jesus's plea from the cross, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 24:34). By these words hell and all its evil were conquered once and for all. By these words God’s love was released into the universe in a way that was unprecedented. This same power manifests in those victimized by sin as they extend God’s forgiveness to their offender. There simply is no greater expression of love than the offer of forgiveness. None.

What if the conditions for granting forgiveness have been met but I’m unable to forgive?

This is the error of the elder son in the story of the prodigal and the padre (Lk 15:11-32). Jesus warns that relationships trump rules (Lk 15:28-30). Forgiveness upsets the balance sheet. Getting all and only what we deserve makes for good accounting and may satisfy our sense of justice, but there’s no room for forgiveness on a balance sheet. Forgiveness offers more than what is deserved. If we find ourselves unable to grant forgiveness, then we must cast our eyes on the cross of Christ and realize anew how much we have been forgiven (see Matt 6:14-15; 18:34-35 for a strong warning against unforgiving hearts.).

Most importantly, “the faculty we have for receiving forgiveness and the faculty we have for granting forgiveness are one and the same thing. If we open the one we shall open the other. If we slam the door on the one, we slam the door on the other” (N. T. Wright). God’s people must be a forgiving people. Freely we have received forgiveness and freely we must offer it. Failing to do the later hinders the former. Since there is a triangle of relationships involved, then the health and formation of our relationship with God hinges on forgiveness (Matt 6:12-14).

Is it possible to know when there is sufficient evidence of repentance before granting forgiveness?

Repentance, like forgiveness, is not a ‘one and done’ event. The thrust of Jesus’s teachings on forgiveness suggests our daily need for both forgiveness and repentance (Matt 6:12-14). Just as forgiveness is repeatedly needed, so too is an ongoing change of behavior required for us to live into our forgiven state. Granted the word ‘repentance’ denotes a change of mind (its etymology), but it really means a change of masters; a complete reorientation heading in a new direction. When a new pattern of healthy and holy behavior is observed by the offended, then forgiveness should be granted. Still, there is often no clear line in the sand. Precisely when offenders demonstrate sufficient repentance can be uncertain, but given an adequate passage of time, the offended can reasonably know that repentance has occurred.

Forgiveness is less about saying something and more about doing something.

God did not just say “you are forgiven,” he put forth his Son as a sacrifice of atonement in order that we might be forgiven. Offering and granting forgiveness to our offender should be no less obvious.

We extend God’s forgiveness to others because we recognize that we are also in need of it. “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt 6:12). We cannot, in good conscience, pray this sincerely unless and until we are leaning forward in a ready-to-forgive posture and willing to embrace our offender.

Sometimes the pain from our offense is so great that any offer of forgiveness results in a kind of re-living of the trauma. Yet when our focus is fixed on God’s love and we remember that “while we were still sinners Christ died for us,” then we can gradually come to a place of willingly offering forgiveness, freeing ourselves from the emotional bondage of the offense.

Granting forgiveness does not always mean the consequences from the offense are removed.

In Numbers 14, the people of Israel have just been freed from slavery in Egypt and on their way to the promised land. Despite all the miracles God performed on their behalf Israel is shaken by fear and driven to unbelief when they learn the indigenous people of the promised land are mightier than they. Rather than trust the Lord, Israel “raised their voices and wept aloud” crying “Why is the LORD bringing us to this land only to let us fall by the sword? Our wives and children will be taken as plunder. Wouldn’t it be better for us to go back to Egypt?”

In a word, they failed to trust God. And were it not for Moses’s intercession asking God to forgive their rebellion, God would have destroyed them for their unbelief. Numbers 14:20-23 captures the Lord’s reply to Moses:

“I have forgiven them, as you asked. Nevertheless, as surely as I live and as surely as the glory of the LORD fills the whole earth, not one of the men who saw my glory and the miraculous signs I performed in Egypt and in the desert but who disobeyed me and tested me ten times–not one of them will ever see the land I promised on oath to their forefathers. No one who has treated me with contempt will ever see it.

Thus began a 40-year trek south into the wilderness instead of an approximate 11-day migration to the promised land. Forgiveness granted and consequences imposed.

God may in fact require that we experience the ongoing effects of our moral failure, despite being forgiven. Nevertheless, Christ-followers will do well to remember that God’s discipline is not without purpose. Negative consequences are not how the story ends. True, those who saw so much of God’s faithfulness but failed to faithfully trust him were not permitted to enter the promised land. That was how their story ended.

But for believers in Christ, there is another side to the narrative that must not be ignored. It is quite possible that the ongoing effects of our moral failure are somehow good and best for us. There may be something in the consequences that we will not otherwise learn (on which see further my post here). Our heavenly Father knows precisely what he is doing and only permits that which is only good and best for us and optimal for all. The eyes of faith see this and hearts gripped by God’s love will surrender to the goods that emerge.

Finally, with this understanding in place, what would it look like to be a people who lean forward in forgiving others as we lean backward into the forgiven status that we share? How would our world be different if, instead of excluding those who have wronged us, we instead embrace them with the offer of forgiveness?

Clearly the world is different because Christ cried out, “Father, forgive them."

“Remember, Lord, your great mercy and love, for they are from of old. Do not remember the sins of my youth and my rebellious ways; according to your love remember me, for you, Lord, are good.” Psalm 25:6-7

Further questions for consideration:

What can we make of Christ’s plea for forgiveness from the cross (Lk 23:34)? Did God grant Jesus’s request?
Given this model of forgiveness, are believers the only ones who can offer genuine forgiveness? Are unbelievers able to receive forgiveness in its fullest sense?
What about the persistently unrepentant? Is there a point of no return where some cross a threshold and are unable to repent and find forgiveness? See Rom 9:17-22; Heb 6:4-6.
How does my remaining impenitent and not seeking forgiveness hinder my relationship with God? Exactly how serious is it for me to fail to repent once I’m aware of my sin against another? See Mt 5:23-26.

Excursus: Forgive and Forget?

Does God forget my sins when he forgives my sins? Aren’t we supposed to “forgive and forget?” After all, the Bible states “I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more” (Isaiah 43:25). And, Jeremiah exclaims “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more” (Jeremiah 31:34).

But wait a minute!

I thought God was omniscient! How can a being who knows all things forget anything and remain all-knowing? Perhaps the notion that God forgets our sins is not a cognitive act at all but a behavioral one. For instance, 1 Samuel 1:19-20 says God “remembered” Hannah and opened her womb so she could conceive. It’s not as though the Lord said, “Oops! Hannah, I am so sorry I forgot about you. I’ve been so busy with other things; it just slipped my mind.” Rather, based upon her prayer to bear children, God DID something on Hannah’s behalf.

Or, consider how we use the word “remember” when I ask you to “remember me in prayer.” It’s not as though I’m asking you to literally recall me to mind because you have forgotten me. I am, however, asking you to DO something on my behalf; in this instance pray for me. Likewise, God does not and in fact cannot forget our sins, but he does graciously choose not to hold them against us.

It may be psychologically appealing to believe that God “forgives and forgets,” but it’s not theologically responsible. What should make me feel good is that God can know my every sin for eternity and still choose to grant forgiveness to me! This is the God of Scripture and this is the God we love and worship. Only a God who is eternally gracious yet eternally mindful of my sin can eternally forgive but not forget.

With this theological framework in place, is it reasonable to expect that humans should forgive and forget one another? When someone says “forgive and forget,” they may mean the offender should no longer be counted blameworthy. As previously stated, this seems right on the view that the condition for granting forgiveness has been met (repentance).

Sadly, however, the expression “forgive and forget” is often used glibly to mean the offended should act as if the sin committed against them never happened. If this is what is intended by “forgive and forget,” then I would not agree. Here’s why. First, on a purely practical note it’s not reasonable to expect the offended to simply disregard an offense or engage in some kind of make-believe. We know intuitively that the past does not change and no amount of dismissal will undo what has been done. Moreover, this instance of “forgive and forget” is akin to denial and can do more harm to all parties. Therapists make a career out of helping people come to grips with reality as it is.

Second, treating the offender as if there is no offense is a failure to discern how we view the past. When I sin against another, that sin becomes part of my personal history; it remains permanently part of my story (remember, the past does not change). Consequently, I am blameworthy for causing a breach between me (as offender) and the person I sin against (the offended). On the Christian view, however, there is more to my story than just my personal history. It is possible that my moral history changes when, on the condition of repentance, forgiveness is offered and granted to me by the offended. When forgiveness is granted on the condition of repentance, then the needle moves in the relationship because my moral history shifts from blameworthy to blameless. This change in status, then, allows my moral history to take precedence over my personal history in the eyes of the offended and moves my offense, not out of sight, but into the background of the relationship.2 Forgiveness applied, therefore, fixes the breach caused by sin enjoining both parties to heal and move toward reconciliation.3

What’s more, in a twist of irony the relationship once fractured may even be stronger because both parties remember. How so? The offended, cognizant of the offense, chooses not to hold the offender blameworthy thus growing in the virtue of forgiveness and 2) the offender’s recall of their past sin serves as an ongoing reminder that the relationship has immense value, is not to be taken for granted, and consequently cherished all the more. Both sides of remembering demonstrate to both parties a strength of character in and depth of gratitude for the relationship; a strength and depth that otherwise would not have been.4

Living together as forgiven and forgiving people is the way of Christ. “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you” (Eph 4:32).

I am aware we can distinguish sin from offense and it’s important that we not confuse or conflate the two. While all sins are an offense, not all offenses are sin. I can be offended by the harshness of someone else’s demeanor, for example, without them being morally guilty of sin against me. Maybe they have had a bad day and their demeanor is the culmination of negative circumstances unrelated to me. Offenses must be tolerated but sin needs forgiveness. Nevertheless, since all sin involves offense, it is in that sense that I use the term here.

The analogy of scapegoat representing the results of atonement is important to consider here (Lev. 16:21-22).

Note: Not all relationships damaged by sin are reconcilable. In the case of deep trauma, such as rape, incest, murder, et al., reconciliation is neither expected nor required for forgiveness to be granted. The offended can, on the Christian worldview, still maintain a posture of embrace and extend the offer of forgiveness, regardless of repentance shown. Still, the viability of a relationship depends upon many circumstances.

I first became aware of the distinction between one’s personal history and moral history from Jonathan Rutledge’s book, Forgiveness and Atonement. See my review here.

Inchristus 'Stack

Discussion about this post